Continuing attacks on traditional family values
Legal Duo Says Schools Should Stop Pushing Abstinence
Tuesday, December 5, 2000 By Catherine Donaldson-Evans
Opening a new front in the religion-in-schools war, two Cornell legal scholars are advocating the removal of abstinence-based sex education from public schools on the grounds that it violates the First Amendment clause requiring separation of church and state.
Constitutional law professor Gary Simson and Cornell Law graduate Erika Sussman say the government is promoting a religious agenda — specifically one backed by fundamentalist Christians — when it allows public schools to teach kids that forgoing sex before marriage is the only way to go.
"The conformity to the Religious Right position is too much to be an accident," said Simson. "That's one of the telling proofs of a religious agenda in the curriculum."
Backers of the abstinence message say the legal minds have gone bonkers.
Using their logic, the backers insist, anything teachers say that carries a message of morality and goodness would be a no-no in public schools because of possible connections with Christianity and other faiths.
The scholars' argument, outlined in the latest issue of The Southern California Review of Law and Women's Studies, relies on part of the First Amendment that forbids laws backing religion. That "establishment clause" prohibits the government from passing laws endorsing religion — or those that have the effect of doing so.
Of the 69 percent of U.S. public schools with a district-wide policy of teaching sexuality education, about 35 percent require the abstinence-before-marriage model.
Sussman and Simson looked at the most widely-used abstinence lesson plan in public schools, known as "Sex Respect," which tries to deter teens from premarital sex, abortion and homosexual behavior by highlighting the moral and medical downsides and risks.
"If premarital sex came in a bottle," the workbook says, "it would probably have to carry a Surgeon General's warning ... There's No Way To Have Premarital Sex Without Hurting Someone."
The president of Christian Coalition in Alabama, one of the states where the Sex Respect curriculum is particularly popular, said the scholars are mistaking moral lessons for religious ones.
Said Alabama CC President John Giles: "You can probably dissect every good trait taught by a schoolteacher and say they've stepped over a line and used public funds to do it."
In recent history, the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed with that assessment — at least when it comes to abstinence-only sex education.
"The Supreme Court has been tolerant of the overlaps between the religious message and the secular message condemning sex outside of marriage," said Catherine Weiss, director of the Reproductive Freedom Project at the American Civil Liberties Union. "They view chastity as a secular value."
"Kids are going to be exposed to the world of sex on every front. What we need to be in the business of is teaching standards."
— John Giles
Weiss, who has been closely involved in cases on the issue, said she finds the authors’ argument "compelling" but predicts it would be difficult to prove in court. The Supreme Court, she says, usually only finds a law to be in violation of the establishment clause if its dominant purpose is to support religion.
"That is a pretty tough test," Weiss said.
Simson argues that the establishment clause does forbid government laws that have the effect of supporting religion — not just those whose primary purpose is to promote a religious agenda. And he thinks the Supreme Court could justify outlawing abstinence-only lessons on those grounds.
"We make an argument that, even if the court finds that (religion) is not the only purpose, that adopting a program of this sort has the effect of communicating government support of religion," he said.
He and others favor the comprehensive sex education curricula — which present abstinence as one option but also teach teens about birth control and other sexuality issues should they decide to have sex before marriage.
"The biggest danger is that it doesn't speak to students who don't end up practicing abstinence," Simson said. "It's a bankrupt approach. These are public schools; it's the government endorsing religion. And their endorsement of religion here is very damaging to teenagers."
But Giles and those supporting the abstinence-only message in schools say the curriculum is part of teaching kids values like good character and morality. He says the primary goal is not promoting religion but reducing teen pregnancy.
"Where do you draw the line on teaching positive attributes?" he said. "Kids are going to be exposed to the world of sex on every front. What we need to be in the business of is teaching standards." |
